IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

What is "time resolution"?
Axon
post Oct 5 2006, 21:50
Post #1





Group: Members (Donating)
Posts: 1985
Joined: 4-January 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 10933



So I've become involved in a rather colorful argument (I'm Publius in the thread) with somebody on stevehoffman.tv. The original thread revolved around shooting down an old audiophile canard, about how subsample delays cannot be represented in PCM. In the course of that debate, I've begun to question a couple things.
  • Is it ever accurate to use the term "time resolution" in any sort of technical context? To the best of my knowledge, it has no universally agreed upon technical definition. Most of the times I've seen it used are either for SACD/DVD-A marketing fluff, or to describe FFT window lengths. I'm tempted to just go quasi-logical-positivist on everybody and say that it is a completely meaningless phrase.
  • Is there any meaningful time-domain constraint on audio quality that is directly related to the sampling period? Subsample delays (as I've shown above) are not meaningfully related. Bandwidth is a frequency-domain attribute. Pre-echo potentially gets more audible at lower sampling rates, but this is not a concern with sigma-delta ADCs, and it is of debatable audibility at 44.1 to begin with. Some DSP operations may be harder to implement at lower sample rates, but most of the issues involve seem implementation-related. I'm suspecting that there are no clear general limits as to what can and cannot be accomplished in PCM, except with respect to very domain-specific or system-specific situations; and so any claims of 44khz always being limited in ways different from bandwidth may be regarded with skepticism.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
KikeG
post Oct 8 2006, 17:59
Post #2


WinABX developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1578
Joined: 1-October 01
Member No.: 137



As others have said, time resolution of PCM is the inverse of sampling rate multiplied by nš of discrete levels. In other words,

T = 1/(fs*2^n)

Where n is nš of bits. And that's all.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Oct 8 2006, 18:14
Post #3





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 17:59) *
As others have said, time resolution of PCM is the inverse of sampling rate multiplied by nš of discrete levels. In other words,

T = 1/(fs*2^n)

Where n is nš of bits. And that's all.

So your, considered 'contemporary' definition of 'time resolution' of PCM becomes finer as the number of included levels increases. And you appreciate no further clarification of what your definition practicaly means for the resolution of details throughout time in the record. Fine, but the scope of this topic provided for a wider discussion.


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Oct 8 2006, 19:37
Post #4





Group: Members
Posts: 1414
Joined: 9-January 05
From: In the kitchen
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:14) *
So your, considered 'contemporary' definition of 'time resolution' of PCM becomes finer as the number of included levels increases. And you appreciate no further clarification of what your definition practicaly means for the resolution of details throughout time in the record. Fine, but the scope of this topic provided for a wider discussion.



Your words here are meaningless. "Appreciate no further clarification" is meaningless, at least without your providing some clear, testable, verifiable "clarification" that you believe necessary.

With the understanding stated above, the issue is settled. You have your answer, and you might as well live with it. I don't see any reason to engage you further until you use language that those skilled in the art can actually recognize as having technical meaning.

QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:55) *
Detail of any time localisable events, will be distorted by the implicit lowpass of conversion by an unknowable amount (post conversion) by upto a sample-period-width of difference.



This is completely incorrect. Please do not state it as a fact, and please do not reproduce this myth where it may confuse others.

You clearly have no understanding of the function and effect of the antialiasing filter at the input to the sampling process, or of the meaning of a bandwidth limited signal.

Try this: Create a gaussian pulse. Since you are making expert judgements here, you should have no trouble doing that.

Create a gaussian pulse that is down 90dB at 22.05 kHz. Surely that will be easy, since it involves the simplest Fourier Identity in existance.

Now, figure out the sample values for that. Shift the time by 1/10000th of a sample time, and figure out the sample values. They are different.

Q.E.D.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
ChiGung
post Oct 8 2006, 19:57
Post #5





Group: Members
Posts: 439
Joined: 9-February 05
From: county down
Member No.: 19713



QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 8 2006, 19:37) *
Your words here are meaningless. "Appreciate no further clarification" is meaningless, at least without your providing some clear, testable, verifiable "clarification" that you believe necessary.

You dont like my online persona, and I sure dont like yours woody lets leave it a that.

Others regard the level of attention I am up against here.

Clear, testable, verifiable clarifications have been provided for those sincerely intereseted in them.

QUOTE
QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:55) *
Detail of any time localisable events, will be distorted by the implicit lowpass of conversion by an unknowable amount (post conversion) by upto a sample-period-width of difference.

This is completely incorrect. Please do not state it as a fact, and please do not reproduce this myth where it may confuse others.

It is fact - there will be people using this forum with the understanding and experience to realise it.
Perhaps in your haste to offend me, you forgot the type of conversion being discussed is neccessarily a downsample (ie. a type involving an implicit lowpass)

QUOTE
Try this: Create a gaussian pulse. Since you are making expert judgements here, you should have no trouble doing that.
Create a gaussian pulse that is down 90dB at 22.05 kHz. Surely that will be easy, since it involves the simplest Fourier Identity in existance.
Now, figure out the sample values for that. Shift the time by 1/10000th of a sample time, and figure out the sample values. They are different.

Yeah you did forget that. There is no downsample involved there, just a shifting of a record.
Pay the thread better attention before posting please.

QUOTE ("chigung")
Depending on the characteristics of the information conveyable from the origional media (lenses, microphones, physics of air etc) it may be suitably restricted for precise capture/repoduction by certain samplerates, but because the source media may also not be suitably restricted (and very often is not) we have to allow for this possibility. It's surprised me that there has been a strong tendency to discount this as recognising source media may have finer resolution than target samplerates is fundamental to sensible statements of how accurately target samplerates can record the information of various sources.


This post has been edited by ChiGung: Oct 8 2006, 19:59


--------------------
no conscience > no custom
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Woodinville
post Oct 9 2006, 18:00
Post #6





Group: Members
Posts: 1414
Joined: 9-January 05
From: In the kitchen
Member No.: 18957



QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 11:57) *
Yeah you did forget that. There is no downsample involved there, just a shifting of a record.


Now you're simply being evasive.

Since the signal in question will not be affected by any decent lowpass filter (it has no out-of-band components) your assertions are shown to be wrong.


--------------------
-----
J. D. (jj) Johnston
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic
- Axon   What is "time resolution"?   Oct 5 2006, 21:50
- - benski   Subsample delays are relatively easy to implement ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:04
- - Axon   Well, duh. I showed in that thread that 1/20,000 ...   Oct 5 2006, 22:19
- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 16:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 22:28
- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) Is it ev...   Oct 5 2006, 22:57
- - ChiGung   Yo, that was me (felimid) QUOTE Is there any meani...   Oct 5 2006, 23:07
|- - Axon   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 17:07) Yo, t...   Oct 6 2006, 00:11
|- - legg   AFAIK, time resolution is most commonly used to re...   Oct 6 2006, 00:28
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 5 2006, 13:50) So I...   Oct 5 2006, 23:20
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE ("woodinville")The first issue is ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:46
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 02:10
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Mike Giacomelli @ Oct 6 2006, 02:1...   Oct 6 2006, 04:30
||- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 20:30) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:27
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 19:46) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 06:21
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 16:46) Howev...   Oct 6 2006, 08:26
- - Woodinville   Well, considered for Guassian vs. Gaussian, dt * ...   Oct 6 2006, 00:35
- - kjoonlee   Does "higher sampling rates mean higher tempo...   Oct 6 2006, 00:47
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (kjoonlee @ Oct 6 2006, 00:47) Does...   Oct 6 2006, 00:57
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 5 2006, 18:57) QUOTE...   Oct 7 2006, 05:12
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, You can prove sub-sample time domain acc...   Oct 6 2006, 10:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE We're assuming the signal is band limite...   Oct 6 2006, 16:32
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 11:32) I can...   Oct 6 2006, 16:54
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE But perhaps for starters, you can describe i...   Oct 6 2006, 17:08
||- - krabapple   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 12:08) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 21:11
||- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 18:08) Look....   Oct 7 2006, 10:43
|- - Mike Giacomelli   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 6 2006, 08:32) QUOTE...   Oct 6 2006, 20:54
- - Axon   Okay, so this has gone completely f*cking off topi...   Oct 6 2006, 17:49
|- - krabapple   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 6 2006, 12:49) Okay, so...   Oct 6 2006, 20:51
- - Canar   QUOTE Ask yourself: "is there any meaningful ...   Oct 6 2006, 21:20
- - Canar   Exactly, kwwong. ChiGung, consider this: In the co...   Oct 7 2006, 08:04
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 01:43) No, ther...   Oct 7 2006, 18:00
|- - MedO   QUOTE That assumption is a bit of a problem, in my...   Oct 7 2006, 18:42
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 20:57
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 7 2006, 09:42) Of cours...   Oct 7 2006, 23:18
|- - MedO   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 00:18) the p...   Oct 8 2006, 00:13
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (MedO @ Oct 8 2006, 00:13) QUOTE (C...   Oct 8 2006, 00:28
- - Canar   ChiGung, it is increasingly apparent you are not i...   Oct 8 2006, 00:26
- - Canar   I've provided a mathematical example of why yo...   Oct 8 2006, 01:05
- - cabbagerat   For your viewing pleasure, here's a quick demo...   Oct 8 2006, 08:07
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 08:07) Fo...   Oct 8 2006, 15:02
- - Canar   So because sinc() interpolation is weird, PCM fail...   Oct 8 2006, 15:28
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 06:02) This ...   Oct 8 2006, 15:51
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Oct 8 2006, 15:51) I ...   Oct 8 2006, 16:10
- - KikeG   As others have said, time resolution of PCM is the...   Oct 8 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 17:59) As othe...   Oct 8 2006, 18:14
|- - KikeG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 18:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 18:24
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (KikeG @ Oct 8 2006, 18:24) Resolut...   Oct 8 2006, 18:55
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 10:14) So yo...   Oct 8 2006, 19:37
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Oct 8 2006, 19:37) Y...   Oct 8 2006, 19:57
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 11:57) Yeah ...   Oct 9 2006, 18:00
- - Canar   ChiGung, despite your frequent reassertions to the...   Oct 8 2006, 20:08
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Canar @ Oct 8 2006, 20:08) I would...   Oct 8 2006, 20:28
|- - ChiGung   I think that it is being claimed, almost unanimous...   Oct 8 2006, 21:44
|- - legg   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 15:44) I hav...   Oct 9 2006, 01:32
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (legg @ Oct 9 2006, 01:32) QUOTE (C...   Oct 9 2006, 02:16
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Oct 8 2006, 21:44) The e...   Oct 9 2006, 15:08
- - legg   Fine forget about the code and do try to provide m...   Oct 9 2006, 03:27
|- - MedO   If I understand you right, you are saying that the...   Oct 9 2006, 09:35
|- - ChiGung   Hello all, I left this discussion in a tizz and ha...   Nov 15 2006, 01:16
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 14 2006, 19:16) 44kH...   Nov 15 2006, 09:50
|- - kwwong   QUOTE (kwwong @ Nov 15 2006, 03:50) QUOTE...   Nov 16 2006, 10:24
- - 2Bdecided   Here are some nice pictures... I worked at 16-b...   Oct 9 2006, 15:24
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Oct 9 2006, 06:08) It...   Oct 9 2006, 16:54
- - Axon   So I was mainly pissed off in my earlier post beca...   Oct 9 2006, 17:30
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (Axon @ Oct 9 2006, 09:30) The form...   Oct 9 2006, 18:41
- - 2Bdecided   ChiGung, Your experiment wouldn't work. By kn...   Nov 15 2006, 13:00
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 12:00) .....   Nov 15 2006, 13:45
- - 2Bdecided   So, in short, you want to run an experiment to see...   Nov 15 2006, 14:29
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 13:29) So...   Nov 15 2006, 14:45
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 19:42
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:39) ...   Nov 15 2006, 19:56
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 10:56) Nice...   Nov 15 2006, 20:01
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 19:01) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:30
||- - AstralStorm   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 22:43
||- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:30) Im f...   Nov 16 2006, 14:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 16 2006, 13:22) My...   Nov 16 2006, 17:10
||- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 17:10) The ...   Nov 16 2006, 18:22
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 16 2006, 17:22) Q...   Nov 16 2006, 18:51
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 09:51) I be...   Nov 16 2006, 22:48
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 21:48) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:32
||- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 16 2006, 14:32) ...   Nov 16 2006, 23:44
||- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 16 2006, 22:44) ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:15
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 18:42) ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:14
|- - Garf   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 20:14) The ...   Nov 15 2006, 20:18
|- - Woodinville   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 11:14) Im n...   Nov 15 2006, 23:35
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (Woodinville @ Nov 15 2006, 22:35) ...   Nov 16 2006, 01:20
- - cabbagerat   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 05:45) It i...   Nov 15 2006, 15:22
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (cabbagerat @ Nov 15 2006, 14:22) T...   Nov 15 2006, 15:51
- - 2Bdecided   I wish you understood the theory CG, because witho...   Nov 15 2006, 16:18
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 15:18) It...   Nov 15 2006, 17:01
|- - 2Bdecided   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:01) QUOT...   Nov 15 2006, 18:06
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Nov 15 2006, 17:06) Yo...   Nov 15 2006, 18:31
- - SebastianG   I also don't see the point in checking the pos...   Nov 15 2006, 16:48
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 15:48) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:16
- - SebastianG   I happened to code a subpixel detector for "x...   Nov 15 2006, 17:30
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:30) I...   Nov 15 2006, 17:53
|- - SebastianG   QUOTE (ChiGung @ Nov 15 2006, 17:53) It w...   Nov 15 2006, 17:59
|- - ChiGung   QUOTE (SebastianG @ Nov 15 2006, 16:59) Q...   Nov 15 2006, 18:21
- - MoSPDude   I've been trying to follow this as well, and e...   Nov 17 2006, 00:21
- - Woodinville   QUOTE (MoSPDude @ Nov 16 2006, 15:21) If ...   Nov 17 2006, 00:40
2 Pages V   1 2 >


Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th December 2014 - 05:47